GACAD VS. JUDGE CLAPIS JR., AM NO. RTJ-10-2257, JULY 17, 2012.

FACTS:
Petitioner filed a Verified Complaint against Judge Clapis for Grave Misconduct and Corrupt Practices, Grave
Abuse of Discretion, Gross Ignorance of the Law, and violations of Canon 1 (Rule 1.01, 1.02), Canon 2 (Rule 2.01), and
Canon 3 (Rule 3.05) of the Code of Judicial Conduct relative to a criminal case.
Petitioner alleged that she met Judge Clapis at the Golden Palace Hotel in Tagum City to talk about the case of
her brother. The prosecutor of the said case, Graciano Arafol, informed the petitioner that the Judge will do everything
for her favor but on the pretext that in return she has to give P50,000.00 to the Judge. During the meeting, the Judge,
after being satisfied of the promise of the petitioner for that amount, told her "Sige, kay ako na bahala, gamuson nato ni
sila." (Okay, leave it all to me, we shall crush them.)
When the case was set on hearing, the Notices of Hearings were mailed to the petitioner only after the date of
hearing. Judge Clapis started conducting the bail hearings without an application for bail and granting the same without
affording the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. He set a preliminary
conference seven months from the date it was set, patently contrary to his declaration of speedy trial for the case.
However, the judge claimed that notices were made verbally because of time constraints. Nevertheless, he stressed that
both sides were given the opportunity to be heard since in almost all proceedings, petitioner was in court and the
orders were done in open court. He admitted that his personnel inadvertently scheduled the preliminary conference of
the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Judge is guilty of the charges.

HELD: YES.
Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior in
connection with ones performance of official functions and duties. For grave or gross misconduct to exist, the judicial
act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by the intention to violate the law, or a persistent disregard of wellknown rules. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment.
The acts of Judge Clapis in meeting the petitioner, a litigant in a case pending before his sala and telling those
words, constitute gross misconduct. Judge Clapis wrongful intention and lack of judicial reasoning are made overt by
the circumstances on record. Judge Clapis cannot escape liability by shifting the blame to his court personnel. He ought
to know that judges are ultimately responsible for order and efficiency in their courts, and the subordinates are not the
guardians of the judges responsibility.
The arbitrary actions of respondent judge, taken together, give doubt as to his impartiality, integrity and propriety.
His acts amount to gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly: Canon 2,
Section 1 and 2; Canon 3, Section 2 and 4; and Canon 4, Section 1.
We also find Judge Clapis liable for gross ignorance of the law for conducting bail hearings without a petition for
bail being filed by the accused and without affording the prosecution an opportunity to prove that the guilt of the
accused is strong. Here, the act of Judge Clapis is not a mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment but a
patent disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference of bad
faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law. If judges are allowed to wantonly misuse the powers vested
in them by the law, there will not only be confusion in the administration of justice but also oppressive disregard of the
basic requirements of due process.